Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8341553" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's an xcardy situation, though.&nbsp; If the direction is so unwanted that a player is just going to drop out, that's not unserious minor stuff that's just about what's going on in the games fiction -- it's crossed into the social contract.Maybe.&nbsp; I dislike the X card as described because it's a hard stop to the game with no explanation required -- you can't even really question what might have caused the incident.&nbsp; Instead, if Sally feels empowered to say that they don't want to play in a game with this kind of fiction, then everyone has the chance to realign before Sally leaves the table.&nbsp; But, my main point was that the GM in this situation has no special insight to the problem, so putting them in the primary spot does nothing but possibly reinforce the idea that Sally needs to just quietly quit the game.&nbsp; If, instead, everyone is empowered to say something, rather than the assumption that it's the GM's role to do so, then Sally at least has the understanding that she can say something and that it will be listened to.&nbsp; Perhaps everyone else at the table wants that play, in which case we've uncovered a mismatch in gaming wants, and it's still appropriate for Sally to find another game.&nbsp; Or, perhaps, we find out Don doesn't like it either, Fred and Andy don't really care, and Bob isn't adamant that he be allowed to murder.&nbsp; So, the situation gets resolved.&nbsp; This isn't something that happens if the GM is the de facto assumed person responsible for saying something because the GM can miss it and then it appears to have the GM's approval.&nbsp; It basically hopes the GM gets it right, because if they don't, it adds another social barrier to actually speaking up as a player.Being decent is being decent.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8341553, member: 16814"] That's an xcardy situation, though. If the direction is so unwanted that a player is just going to drop out, that's not unserious minor stuff that's just about what's going on in the games fiction -- it's crossed into the social contract. Maybe. I dislike the X card as described because it's a hard stop to the game with no explanation required -- you can't even really question what might have caused the incident. Instead, if Sally feels empowered to say that they don't want to play in a game with this kind of fiction, then everyone has the chance to realign before Sally leaves the table. But, my main point was that the GM in this situation has no special insight to the problem, so putting them in the primary spot does nothing but possibly reinforce the idea that Sally needs to just quietly quit the game. If, instead, everyone is empowered to say something, rather than the assumption that it's the GM's role to do so, then Sally at least has the understanding that she can say something and that it will be listened to. Perhaps everyone else at the table wants that play, in which case we've uncovered a mismatch in gaming wants, and it's still appropriate for Sally to find another game. Or, perhaps, we find out Don doesn't like it either, Fred and Andy don't really care, and Bob isn't adamant that he be allowed to murder. So, the situation gets resolved. This isn't something that happens if the GM is the de facto assumed person responsible for saying something because the GM can miss it and then it appears to have the GM's approval. It basically hopes the GM gets it right, because if they don't, it adds another social barrier to actually speaking up as a player. Being decent is being decent. [/QUOTE]

Verification